Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > February 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25314 February 10, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF TACURONG v. ROSARIO ABRAGAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25314. February 10, 1968.]

THE MUNICIPALITY OF TACURONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROSARIO ABRAGAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Estanislao V. Valdez, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Condrado S. Gonzales for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE; COMPLAINT; CAUSE OF ACTION; SUFFICIENCY THEREOF; MATTERS OF DEFENSE NEED NOT BE ALLEGED. — There is a sufficient allegation of a cause of action in a complaint for the recovery of a parcel of land by the Municipality of Tacurong, Cotabato so that the same may be devoted to the purpose reserved by Executive Proclamation No. 351 where the complaint sufficiently alleges that said Executive Proclamation had reserved the land in question for Municipal Park Site purposes. Though Executive Proclamation No. 351 provides for compensation and/or removal of improvements to occupants for their constructions on the lot in question, fulfillment of this right need not be alleged in the complaint for said right is a matter for the occupants to plead as a defense, in their answer and during the trial on the merits.

2. ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL ON GROUND THAT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN OFFER OF PAYMENT. — The lower court erred to have considered that the offer of payment is precedent to the enforceability of the proclamation. The cited position of the proclamation does not speak only of compensation but adds "and/or removal of improvements," thereby indicating that payment of compensation does not always have to take place. It is for the defendants, therefore, to show that they are entitled to compensation and recovery.

3. EVIDENCE; JUDICIAL NOTICE OF EXECUTIVE PROCLAMATIONS. — The lower court committed no error in taking judicial notice of Executive Proclamation No. 351 because Executive Proclamations are among the matters within judicial notice under Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


On October 9, 1956, Lot No. 6001, PLS-73, situated in the Municipality of Tacurong, Cotabato and formerly part of the public domain, was declared by Executive Proclamation No. 351, as land reserved for Municipal Site Purposes and withdrawn from sale or resettlement. Portions of said land were then occupied by Rosario Abragan, Ramona Pirales, Teofilo Apilado, Ester Apilado, all for residential purposes, and by the Tacurong Evangelical Church, for religious purposes.

Years later, on August 29, 1961, the Municipality of Tacurong, through Atty. Estanislao Valdez, Secretary to the Mayor, filed before the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, a complaint for recovery of possession of the above-stated land against said occupants after the latter had allegedly refused repeated demands of the municipality for them to vacate the land so that the same may be devoted to the purpose reserved by the proclamation.

The defendants sought on September 18, 1961, to dismiss the complaint, alleging that it stated no cause of action because Executive Proclamation No. 351 provides for compensation to occupants for their constructions; and that there was no allegation of any offer or refusal of compensation prior to the filing of the action. Defendants also claimed that the complaint should have been filed by the Solicitor General or any attorney authorized by law.

The court, on February 28, 1962, ruled that the complaint had a sufficient cause of action and pointed out that the municipality could engage its own counsel to file the case on its behalf.

On April 5, 1962, however, defendants filed a motion for reconsideration citing a particular portion of the Proclamation which provides: "To protect and safeguard the interests of certain occupants who in good faith have introduced improvements in the reservation, the Municipality of Tacurong shall make proper arrangements for the compensation and/or removal of said improvements." These "arrangements for compensation" were advanced as conditions precedent to the filing of the complaint and, since no allegation of fulfillment of such conditions was made, defendants maintained that the complaint did not state a cause of action.

Acting thereon, the court of first instance dismissed the case on the ground that the complaint did not allege the conditions precedent to the enforcement of the Executive Proclamation. The same court denied the plaintiff’s urgent motion for reconsideration, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the contents of the proclamation should not have been considered, with the observation that the Presidential Proclamation is a matter of which judicial notice may be taken.

The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals which in turn certified the case to Us on questions purely of law.

The purely legal questions are on the sufficiency of the cause of action alleged in the complaint and the propriety of the court’s having taken judicial notice of the Executive Proclamation.

As a ground for dismissal, lack of a cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint. And thus to determine whether a complaint states a cause of action, only facts alleged in the complaint, and no other, should be considered. 1 The complaint at bar after citing the Executive Proclamation, alleges among other things that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In view of the desire of the Municipality of Tacurong, Cotabato, to improve and utilize Lot No. 6001, Pls-73, for the purpose for which it was legally reserved, notices have been repeatedly served on the above-named defendants to vacate said premises, but said defendants repeatedly and obstinately refused to vacate said premises, the notices to that effect notwithstanding and they still continue to refuse to vacate said lot." 2

We consider this to be a sufficient allegation of a cause of action. Though not alleging that offers for compensation had been made by the municipality, paragraph two 3 of the complaint sufficiently alleges that executive Proclamation No. 351 had reserved the land in question for Municipal Park Site purposes. The defendants’ alleged right to compensation under the proclamation is a matter for them to plead as a defense in their answer and during the trial on the merits.

The judicial notice of the proclamation was not an error on the part of the court because Executive Proclamations are among the matters within judicial notice under Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court. 4 However, We find it an error for the lower court to have considered that the offer of payment was a condition precedent to the enforceability of the proclamation. The cited portion of the proclamation does not speak only of compensation but adds "and/or removal of said improvements," thereby indicating that payment of compensation does not always have to take place. It is for the defendants, therefore, to show that they are entitled to compensation and recovery.

WHEREFORE, the dismissal order appealed from is hereby reversed and the case is rendered to the lower court for further proceedings. No costs. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Remitere v. Montino Vda. de Yulo, L-19751, Feb. 28, 1966; Dalandan v. Julio, L-19101, Feb. 29, 1964.

2. Par. 4 of Complaint, p. 3 of Record on Appeal.

3. P. 2 of Record on Appeal.

4. Formerly, Sec. 5, Rule 123.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 381 February 10, 1968 - EMILIO CAPULONG, ET AL. v. MANUEL G. ALIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-23342 February 10, 1968 - MACARIO ALQUIZA, ET AL. v. PLACIDO ALQUIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22944 February 10, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIA SAN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22067 February 10, 1968 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., INC. v. JOSE SOTOMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-24147 February 10, 1968 - FEDERICO R. CASTRO, ET AL. v. MATILDE PARA-ON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24319 February 10, 1968 - LONDON ASSURANCE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24950 February 10, 1968 - IN RE: JAO KING YOG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25314 February 10, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF TACURONG v. ROSARIO ABRAGAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • G.R. No. L-23433 February 10, 1968 - GLORIA G. JOCSON v. RICARDO R. ROBLES

  • G.R. No. L-28455 February 10, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23882 February 17, 1968 - M.D. TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 106 February 17, 1968 - IRINEO A. MERCADO v. ENRIQUE MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-19227 February 17, 1968 - DIOSDADO YULIONGSIU v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-20411 February 17, 1968 - BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO v. SALVADOR R. VILLAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22138 February 17, 1968 - ANG CHING GI v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23794 February 17, 1968 - ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC. v. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23861 February 17, 1968 - EMILIANA CRUZ v. ERNESTO OPPEN, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24289 February 17, 1968 - CENTRAL TAXICAB CORPORATION v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24529 February 17, 1968 - EDUARDO JIMENEZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24910 February 17, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28170 & L-28200 February 17, 1968 - CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28519 February 17, 1968 - RICARDO PARULAN v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-26934 February 19, 1968 - WISE & COMPANY, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20722 February 20, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO ALEGARME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23595 February 20, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO ANG GUI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-28596 February 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TILOS

  • G.R. No. L-28517 February 21, 1968 - AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23539 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DALTON

  • G.R. No. L-24033 February 22, 1968 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. UNITED STATES LINES

  • G.R. No. L-24146 February 22, 1968 - MIGUEL MABILIN, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR

  • G.R. No. L-24223 February 22, 1968 - CORNELIO AGUILA, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24225 February 22, 1968 - MANUEL CUDIAMAT, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO E. TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-24546 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS MACALISANG

  • G.R. No. L-24364 February 22, 1968 - BIENVENIDO MEDRANO v. FILEMON MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-25529 February 22, 1968 - BENJAMIN PANGANIBAN, ET AL. v. ARACELI VDA. DE STA. MARIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26767 February 22, 1968 - ANG TIONG v. LORENZO TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23859 February 22, 1968 - CONSOLIDATED TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22579 February 23, 1968 - ROLANDO LANDICHO v. LORENZO RELOVA

  • G.R. No. L-23793 February 23, 1968 - ORMOC SUGARCANE PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23960 & L-23961 February 26, 1968 - DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU v. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-23425 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL FORTICH CELDRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24241 February 26, 1968 - HATIB ABBAIN v. TONGHAM CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21853 February 26, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF OPON v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23803 February 26, 1968 - C.F. SHARP & COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23687 February 26, 1968 - GO LEA CHU, ET AL. v. CORAZON GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24362 February 26, 1968 - TACLOBAN ELECTRIC & ICE PLANTS CO., INC. v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24619 February 26, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24864 February 26, 1968 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25035 February 26, 1968 - EDUARDA S. VDA. DE GENUINO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-25152 February 26, 1968 - PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25335 February 26, 1968 - SUN BROS. APPLIANCES v. TRINITY LUNCHEONETTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25383 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-19347 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22476 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SENANDO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25491 February 27, 1968 - BIENVENIDO F. REYES v. ROMEO G. ABELEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28651 February 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AMERICAN PIONEER LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19200 February 27, 1968 - EMILIO SY v. MANUEL DALMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20081 February 27, 1968 - MELQUIADES RAAGAS, ET AL. v. OCTAVIO TRAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23385 February 27, 1968 - IN RE: SANTIAGO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21624 February 27, 1968 - SEGUNDO SANTOS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25176 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO YAP, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27360 February 28, 1968 - RICARDO G. PAPA v. REMEDIOS MAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24284 February 28, 1968 - JAIME LIM v. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-2849 February 28, 1968 - DOMACAO ALONTO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23335 & L-23452 February 29, 1968 - ROSITA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22390 February 29, 1968 - IN RE: TAN KHE SHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24064 February 29, 1968 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-28597 February 29, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20990 February 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN v. AGUSTIN PARIÑA